IETF Logo Mail Archive

[apps-discuss] process and editing questions: RFC errata

Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu> Wed, 20 February 2013 14:09 UTC

Return-Path: <dret@berkeley.edu>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E20C21F8833 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 06:09:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YgZpvM0+i0NI for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 06:09:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cm05fe.IST.Berkeley.EDU (cm05fe.IST.Berkeley.EDU [169.229.218.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C439021F883A for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 06:09:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 46-126-158-51.dynamic.hispeed.ch ([46.126.158.51] helo=dretpro.local) by cm05fe.ist.berkeley.edu with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) (auth plain:dret@berkeley.edu) (envelope-from <dret@berkeley.edu>) id 1U8AMb-0000Sk-Ha; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 06:09:38 -0800
Message-ID: <5124D91C.1000703@berkeley.edu>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 15:09:32 +0100
From: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "apps-discuss@ietf.org application-layer protocols" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [apps-discuss] process and editing questions: RFC errata
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 14:09:42 -0000

hello.

i have two process and editing questions: 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilde-xml-patch-03#section-6 
specifically links to errata i have filed regarding RFC 5261. it seems 
to me that these errata are legitimate, and that they simply weren't 
caught earlier. draft-wilde-xml-patch is almost complete, and i am 
wondering about the following things:

- how to best sync draft development, and the submitted errata. there 
seems to be no way to predict when and how errata are processed, in 
particular for RFC 5261 because the author seems to be unreachable.

- if the errata are accepted, how to reference them in the draft. it 
would be important that people following references to RFC 5261 from the 
draft do not just read the RFC, but also take the errata into account 
when implementing the spec.

thanks a lot and cheers,

dret.

-- 
erik wilde | mailto:dret@berkeley.edu  -  tel:+1-510-2061079 |
            | UC Berkeley  -  School of Information (ISchool) |
            | http://dret.net/netdret http://twitter.com/dret |

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email